Fighting Endemic Corruption

Development in many countries around the world is seriously hampered by rampant corruption. Corruption left unchecked, has the tendency of getting inculcated in all the fabrics of society. To help themselves in nation building and stamp out corruption, these countries have engaged in actively fighting corruption, but with very little success.

As a consequence, many investors are unwilling to invest their hard earned cash in developing countries partly because these countries are mired in corruption. Their judicial systems are known for exonerating corrupt workers rather than excoriating them.

Persons holding positions of responsibility are expected to execute their obligations without fear or favor. This is hardly the case. Corruption is even worse in developing nations that are beset by penury.

Typically, in the issuance of a contract, a public official would surreptitiously offer a government contract only to the contractor that pays him an agreed amount of money to his personal account. The conduct and sophistication the scheme is executed often resembles a sub-contract in the contract where the corrupt payment is an obligatory and prerequisite agreement needed before the contract is issued. In fact, such scenarios have become all too common that it is no longer considered aberrant, but understood merely as social gestures.

Bribery has several ramifications. It takes away the keen eyes of accountability and this gives the contractor a license not to be obliged to the terms of the contract. The project is either done prematurely or in some cases abandoned before it is begun with huge sums of money siphoned into private accounts.

Fighting endemic corruption is not an easy task for any government especially in regions where an attempt to probe into the files of a corrupt official might even cost the inspector his job.

It is not uncommon now to walk into some government offices and see units that are dedicated only to fighting corruption. The outcome in most of these places is that, these anti-corruption units instead develop into more adept avenues for corruption. In some countries, the most corrupt worker is the anti-corruption boss.

Corruption is best fought by those most affected by it. Corruption is often a top down scheme where officials having influence and power mutually loot their countries or unscrupulously exact benefits from powerless citizens. The efficacy of a top-down approach to fighting corruption where a senior officer is charged with the duty to discharged corrupt workers has not been successful for a litany of reasons. The most common obstacle is interference and obstruction by more senior officials.

Anti-corruption units hardly follow the letter of the law, but when they do or espouse more draconian measures, they often become the targets of secretly funded hit squads. They become intimidated and are often forced out of their positions.

A more credible approach at fighting corruption would be a bottom-top approach. That means people with little influence are empowered, neither administratively nor economically, but with the means to prosecute officials who deprive them of what they deserve. The affected persons are encouraged to volunteer their free time to serve their communities. They will form anti-corruption units and in addition, will be allowed to choose an attorney of their choice who is then funded by the state to prosecute these officials.

Such a plan eliminates expensive government plans to create inefficient corruption teams that have proven to be even more corrupt.

Community based anti-corruption units will track where the money is going. They will find out how much money the community receives wholly for development. They will evaluate all projects funded and executed and determine who is stealing what. If corruption is kicked out of every community, then corrupt practices will be inexistent in the entire nation.

Evidently, it is easier for a community to tell who is making money illicitly within the community than anyone unfamiliar with the environment. It fits then to say the community would be better at taking the fight head on especially in regions where the inhabitants are closely knit. Providing generous incentives to these communities will go a long way in eliminating corrupt practices.

Contrary to the top-down approach, the community based unit actually has no head that could be intimidated. It is unlikely any corrupt individual would want to challenge an entire community.

A robust strategy to fight endemic corruption would be to have both a top-down and a bottom-up approach. Each investigating unit will work independently, have the same legal status, but the information at every stage of the investigation will be shared. The sharing of information leaves little room for any kind of maneuver.

The widespread nature of corrupt practices in some countries needs somewhat unconventional ways to arrest it. The main handicap with the bottom-to-top approach is the concern that many people in these units may not be very skilled given that workers have to volunteer, but the benefits derived in reducing corruption far outweigh any concerns.

Communities should know how much money is coming in for development, communities should know how much work is done, communities should know who is robbing them of what and communities should have the ability to prosecute anyone ransacking the treasury. With the community based approach, plundering the coffers will be like wrestling a pride of lions of their catch.